Political Mojo | Mother Jones

Video: The Homeless Tent City in Google and Facebook's Backyard

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:17:00 +0000

As the rich have become richer and the poor even poorer, the valley's middle class has disappeared. Nowhere is inequality more obvious than Silicon Valley, where the homeless are building tent cities not far from Google and Facebook headquarters. Moyers & Company reports from the tent cities of San Jose:

Does Obama Have a Plan to Capture an Asteroid?

Asawin Suebsaeng — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 20:16:53 +0000

Does President Barack Obama intend to capture an asteroid and place it into lunar orbit?

This seems more like a Newtonian (as in Gingrich) idea. But on Friday afternoon, the office of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) blasted out a press release disclosing that Obama's forthcoming budget includes a $100 million plan to tow an asteroid into moon orbit. And this will be done for freedom—that is, for the purpose of saving the planet Earth from complete annihilation. (This is not about just serving the Democratic Party's base.)

Here's the gist of the press release:

An excerpt (emphasis mine):

Tucked inside President Barack Obama's proposed federal budget for next fiscal year is about $100 million to jump start a program scientists say is the next step towards humans establishing a permanent settlement in space. That, at least, is what U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson says we're likely to see when the White House unveils its fiscal year 2014 budget around the middle of next week. Nelson has been briefed by scientists...In a nutshell, the plan in NASA's hands calls for catching an asteroid with a robotic spacecraft and towing it back toward Earth, where it would then be placed in a stable orbit around the moon.

Next, astronauts aboard America's Orion capsule, powered into space by a new monster rocket, would travel to the asteroid where there could be mining activities, research into ways of deflecting an asteroid from striking Earth, and testing to develop technology for a trip to deep space and Mars.

"This is part of what will be a much broader program," Nelson said today, during a visit in Orlando. "The plan combines the science of mining an asteroid, along with developing ways to deflect one, along with providing a place to develop ways we can go to Mars."

The president already has established the goal of landing astronauts on a near-Earth asteroid by 2025. This new plan would bump up the date to 2021. As in, not a moment to waste.

Nelson, a former astronaut, has an affinity for asteroids and United States asteroid policy; last month, he was on a Senate panel that grilled scientists about the consequences of an asteroid striking earth. He was keen to know if there is any way for humankind to fight back against asteroid aggression.

Obama has often been slammed for supposedly not being bold, for not being tough enough with foes. But if Nelson is right, Obama is ready to do what's necessary to take on the asteroid threat and make the United States the first nation to claim a giant space rock. Forget Spock or Luke Skywalker; he's going the full Bruce Willis:

Missouri Lawmaker: No Welfare If Your Kid Gets Mono or Depression

Andy Kroll — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 18:02:27 +0000

Missouri Rep. Steve Cookson, a Republican, caused a stir last year when he offered a bill to ban any discussion of sexual orientation in public schools outside of traditional sex ed and science instruction. That meant teachers couldn't talk about gay and lesbian issues during class, and gay-straight alliances couldn't meet during the school day. Critics called it the "don't say gay" bill. It died in committee.

Now, Cookson is back in the news for introducing another controversial bill. Children of welfare recipients can't miss more than 10 percent of their classes—roughly three weeks of school—or their family loses welfare benefits. The bill, which would amend the state's welfare statute, is a single sentence long:

School age children of welfare recipients must attend public school, unless physically disabled, at least ninety percent of the time in order to receive benefits.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks it's OK to skip three weeks' worth class during the school year. But what about an unexpected illness like mono or clinical depression? Cookson has yet to clarify what exactly qualifies for the "physically disabled" exemption in his bill. And so unless mono qualifies as a physical disability, the critics who deride Cookson's bill the "don't get sick" bill make a fair point. A entire family could lose its state assistance if their kid got mono from a classmate.

As the Kansas City Star notes, state Republicans, which control the Missouri General Assembly, recently named Cookson the chair of the House education committee. That means his "don't get sick" bill could get a full airing on the House floor.

The Big GAO Report on Political Intel is Kind of Meh

Tim Murphy — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:02:41 +0000

On Thursday, the Government Accountability Office released its much-anticipated report on political intelligence, a booming but mostly anonymous industry that harvests information on congressional and regulatory activities and passes it on to hedge funds. The industry has exploded over the last decade; in 2009, the most recent year for which an estimate is available, the industry was valued at $402 million. And the industry's growth shows no signs of letting up.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) pushed hard to inset an amendment into the STOCK Act (which prohibited insider trading by members of Congress) mandating that people who collect and sell political intelligence, many of whom are former Hill aides themselves, formally register as operatives. That was defeated after an intense lobbying effort from hedge funds, who wanted to preserve their anonymity. Slaughter and Grassley had to settle for a GAO study:

The report is mostly about what we don't know about political intelligence. "The prevalence of the sale of political intelligence is not known and therefore difficult to quantify." "The extent to which investment decisions are based on a single piece of political intelligence would be extremely difficult to measure." "It is also difficult to determine the extent to which nonpublic government information is being sold as political intelligence." "[I]t is not always clear whether such information could be definitively categorized as material...and whether such information stemmed from public or nonpublic sources at the time of the information exchange." "Congress would need to address the lack of consensus on the meaning of the terms 'direct communication' and 'investment decision.'"

There are none of the bombshell statistics or anecdotes that the GAO is known for, and the report's one Capitol Hill case study, in which Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) leaked the contents of a speech that would influence stocks of asbestos manufacturers, produced no evidence of actual wrongdoing. The STOCK Act sat dormant for five years until a 60 Minutes report compelled Congress to act. Reformers, aware of the adage that nothing ever gets fixed in Washington without a scandal, have been waiting for a similar catalyst for political intelligence.

If you're an open-government advocate, the most disconcerting thing about political intel may just be how normal it's become. Consider this: While deflecting arguments that its operatives should register, political intel professional also told the GAO auditors that any regulation of their colleagues should apply to that other brand of Capitol Hill gossip-hound—reporters. Per the report: "Other interviewees questioned the need for a media exemption. For example, three political intelligence firms, and one attorney from a law firm said that there should not be an exemption for media organizations because they engage in the same activists as political intelligence firms, and ask the same type of questions about the same issues that their subscribers and clients are interested in."

That sounds cynical—and it is—but it's also a reflection of the extent to which Washington media companies are increasing tailoring their services toward an elite clientele. A 2008 internal memo from Politico famously asked its reporters to ask themselves regularly, "Might an investor buy or sell a stock based on this story?"

Judge Rules That Emergency Contraception Should Be Available to Everyone

Kate Sheppard — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:58:05 +0000

A federal judge has ruled that the emergency contraception drug Plan B One-Step, a.k.a. the "morning-after pill," must be made available over the counter to everyone. The decision, issued Friday, overturns a rule that required anyone 16 years old and younger to have a prescription in order to get the pill.

In 2011, despite the Food and Drug Administration's determination that Plan B is safe for all ages, the Department of Health and Human Services decided to block teenagers from buying the drug without a prescription. President Barack Obama endorsed HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' decision, arguing that the government "could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able—alongside bubble gum or batteries—be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect."

But Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court ruled Friday that this was not an acceptable reason to deny access, and that Sebelius' decision "was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent." He wrote:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed. Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

Reproductive rights groups cheered the court ruling, which came after more than a decade of legal wrangling over the issue. "Science has finally prevailed over politics, to the benefit of millions of women across the United States," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the group that filed suit against the FDA over the decision.

Northup and other reproductive rights group argued that the age limits harmed teenagers who required timely access to the drug, which is supposed to be used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. But the age limit also harmed older women, too, because it meant that they had to have a government-issued ID confirming their age in order to access the pill, and its availability was restricted to the hours that pharmacies are open. The use of emergency contraception has become much more common in recent years, with 11 percent of fertile, sexually active women reporting that they have used EC. Now that Plan B will be easier to access, you can expect that number to increase.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for April 5, 2013

Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:31:43 +0000

Marine Corps instructors with 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, light fires in a compound during counter improvised explosive device training at Camp Leatherneck, Helmand province, Afghanistan, April 3, 2013. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Tammy K. Hineline.

Donor Advisory Group Flags Berman Nonprofits

Kate Sheppard — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:59:40 +0000

Charity Navigator, a nonprofit that aims to provide donors with information about the accountability and transparency of other nonprofits, has issued "donor advisory" notices for five different groups run by the notorious DC-based PR firm Berman and Company.

The company, run by Richard Berman, runs a number of non-profits backed by business interests. Here's how our own Daniel Schulman described Berman's work in a 2009 piece:

Nicknamed Dr. Evil—a moniker he embraces—he's the force behind several industry-backed nonprofits that share staff and office space with his very for-profit communications and advertising firm, Berman and Company. The firm promises clients it will not "just change the debate" but "start" one, and a range of companies, from Anheuser-Busch to Philip Morris to the casino chain Harrah's, have signed up for Berman's "aggressive" and "hard-hitting" advocacy. Some clients pay Berman and Co. directly, while others donate to his nonprofits—but much of the cash winds up in the same place, via hefty management fees the front groups pay to Berman's company.

Charity Navigator has posted advisories for five Berman projects: the Center for Consumer Freedom, which opposes regulation of the food and beverage industry; the American Beverage Institute, another beverage industry group; the Center for Union Facts, which targets unions; the Employment Policies Institute Foundation, which campaigns against minimum wage increases; and the Enterprise Freedom Action Committee, a political action committee targeting Democratic candidates.

In its advisories, Charity Navigator cites the fact that the majority of the expenses for these groups are in fact payments to Berman and Company. For the Center for Consumer Freedom, it notes that their 2010 tax forms indicate that $1.7 million of the $2.4 million in total program expenses went directly to Berman and Company. On the American Beverage Institute advisory, it notes that $1.3 million of the total $1.7 million spent in 2011 went to Berman's for-profit company.

Some of the other non-profit groups that Berman and Company has attacked have asked the IRS to review the tax-exempt status of the 501(c)3s, claiming that they should not qualify as charitable organizations. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which runs the website Berman Exposed, has also filed a complaint with the IRS raising questions about the tax status of the Center for Consumer Freedom specifically. The IRS has declined to say whether it is pursuing an investigation.

The irony of this is that the Center for Consumer Freedom previously crowed when Charity Navigator downgraded the rating of the Humane Society of the United States, one of the main organizations its efforts have targeted. (The HSUS rating has gone back up to four stars since then, however.)

Top Dem on Gun Control Says She's Working With GOPers—But Won't Give Names or Numbers

Gavin Aronsen — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:00:08 +0000

In January, with the horror of the Newtown massacre still fresh, House Democrats assembled a task force to begin discussing gun controls. With negotiations now about to culminate in the Senate, the task force is focused on a bipartisan effort to assure a vote on that potential legislation in the House, according to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), who is playing a key role behind the scenes.

McCarthy, who came to Congress in 1997 on a campaign to reduce gun violence after her husband was murdered and her son severely injured in the Long Island Rail Road massacre of 1993, serves as vice chair of the task force. Given the steep political climb for any new gun control measures (with expanded background checks perhaps being the most possible, though still far from certain), McCarthy is remaining tight-lipped about who might be cooperating on the Republican side. "We're not releasing any names," she said, declining to comment even on the number of Republicans involved.

McCarthy did reveal in an interview that the task force is focused on persuading 27 Democrats in the House who typically would not vote for gun reforms. Among those, she said that there may be seven of them "who truly would be in [electoral] trouble" if they backed the bill. (The House currently has 232 Republicans, 200 Democrats, and three vacant seats.) It's a struggle in which she has been facing an all-too-familiar response from some of her colleagues, she said: "'Carolyn, I'd love to vote for you,' they say, but they're waiting to see what comes up [in the Senate]."

Continue Reading »

It's Official: A Majority of Americans Wants Pot Legalized

Josh Harkinson — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:44:33 +0000

For the first time in more than four decades of surveying national attitudes towards marijuana, the Pew Research Center announced today that a majority of Americans believe that pot should be legal. Pew's latest phone survey, conducted over the course of five days last month, found that 52 percent of Americans support pot legalization and 45 percent oppose it.

The most surprising support for tokers' rights came from some of the most socially conservative parts of America. Among residents of the 26 states that have not decriminalized pot or enacted medical marijuana legislation, a whopping 50 percent backed legalization in the poll, compared to only 47 percent who opposed it.

Shifting views on cannabis have a lot to do with changing demographics. The gigantic Millennial generation supports legalization at a rate of nearly 3 to 1. Yet Boomers' views have also shifted, or, you might say, boomeranged: In 1978, 47 percent of Boomers favored legalization, but their support plummeted to 17 percent by 1990 before slowly inching back up, finally hitting the 50 percent mark just this year.

As memories of Reefer Madness and the '60s culture wars continue to fade, more Americans are divorcing pot smoking from notions of morality:

Instead of a crusade against the devil, Americans increasingly view the war on weed in economic terms—and they don't like what they see. A full 72 percent of poll respondents agreed that "government efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more then they are worth."

More on Cuccinelli's Defense of Virginia's Anti-Sodomy Law

Kate Sheppard — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:38:19 +0000

I should elaborate a bit on yesterday's story about Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's request for a rehearing on the state's anti-sodomy law, which has gotten a lot of attention online. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that the state's "Crimes Against Nature" law, which forbids anal and oral sex, whether practiced by straight or gay people, is unconstitutional. But the AG wants the full 15-judge appeals court to hear the case again.

Cuccinelli's spokeswoman said Wednesday that the case "is not about sexual orientation," but about "using current law to protect a 17 year-old girl from a 47 year-old sexual predator."

This specific case deals with a man who was prosecuted under the "Crimes Against Nature" statute for having had oral sex with women, a felony offense under that law. The man in the case, William MacDonald, was in his late 40s when he was charged with having consensual oral sex with two young women who were, at the time, ages 16 and 17. While that might be seen as creepy, in Virginia, the age of consent is 15 years old. It is considered statutory rape—a felony offense—to have sex with anyone under that age. Under state law, an adult can be prosecuted for "causing" delinquency by having sex with someone between the ages of 15 and 18, but that is only a misdemeanor. MacDonald was convicted of such a misdemeanor, and his lawyers aren't challenging that conviction. But they have challenged—so far, successfully—the state's attempt to prosecute him for violating the "Crimes Against Nature" law.

Because Virginia still has this anti-sodomy law on the books, the state wants to use it against MacDonald and win a felony conviction. The state, however, couldn't prosecute him under this statute if he had engaged in vaginal sex. That is, the state is trying to use a loophole in the law that makes oral, but not vaginal, sex a felony in order to go after this guy. The court of appeals determined that MacDonald could not be prosecuted under this law because the US Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that such laws are an unconstitutional "intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

If Cuccinelli's concern is sex with minors, he should focus on changing Virginia's age of consent rules, not defending a law that the Supreme Court has said is indefensible. But in 2004, when a bipartisan group of Virginia legislators tried to change the law so that it would only apply to public sex, sex with minors, and prostitution, Cuccinelli opposed the bill. "My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong," he told a local paper in 2009. "They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. … They don’t comport with natural law."

My colleague Adam Serwer has more on Cuccinelli and the crimes against nature law.

Cuccinelli Campaign Won't Say If He's Committed Any Crimes Against Nature

Adam Serwer — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:38:17 +0000

The campaign of Virginia state attorney general Ken Cuccinelli won't say if he's committed any crimes against nature.

Cuccinelli, who is running to be Virginia's next governor, recently petitioned a federal court to reverse its ruling that the state's archaic "Crimes Against Nature" law is unconstitutional. That statute outlaws oral and anal sex between consenting adults—gay or straight, married or single—making such "carnal" acts a felony. The law is unconstitutional because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated such "anti-sodomy laws" across the country.

As my colleague Kate Sheppard notes, Cuccinelli's office claims that it is appealing the decision because the state's regular statutory rape law doesn't allow it to pursue the harshest punishment against a 47-year-old man who solicited oral sex from teenagers (who were above the age of consent at the time). But as Josh Israel recounts at ThinkProgress, Cuccinelli helped kill an effort to reform the Crimes Against Nature law in order to make it comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence, possibly because the proposed law didn't focus on homosexuality. "My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong," Cuccinelli said in 2009. "They're intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law-based country it's appropriate to have policies that reflect that…They don’t comport with natural law."

If Virginia's ban on "unnatural" sex acts applied nationwide, the Virginia law would make 90 percent of men and women in the United States between the age of 25 and 44 criminals. Here's a chart from the National Center on Health Statistics on sexual behavior in the US:

Violating Virginia's Crimes Against Nature statute was a class six felony in the state, and carried a penalty of between one and five years in prison. The Virginia Department of Corrections only has a capacity of around 30,000. Given that 64.6 percent of Virginia's 8 million residents are between the ages of 18 and 65, the state most likely lacks the prison capacity to house millions of Virginians who, in Cuccinelli's view, have committed crimes against nature.

But what about Cuccinelli and his aides? Mother Jones asked his campaign if Cuccinelli or anyone working for his campaign had ever engaged in any of the prohibited conduct and whether Cuccinelli would fire any campaign staff who had done so. We have received no response. But if Cuccinelli's campaign is being run by criminals against nature, don't the voters have a right to know?

Mark Follman on MSNBC: The NRA's Phony School Shooting

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:34:20 +0000

When the National Rifle Association unveiled its 225-page report for safeguarding school children, it cited a recent massacre in Minnesota as part of its rationale for arming and fortifying America's schools. But as senior editor Mark Follman reported, the massacre that the NRA presented as evidence does not actually exist. Watch him discuss that and other dubious aspects of the gun lobby's report with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell:

Read our full special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings in America.

Mark Follman is a senior editor at Mother Jones. Read more of his stories and follow him on Twitter.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for April 4, 2013

Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:47:20 +0000

Sgt. Justin R. Pereira, from Gooding, Idaho, and Laika 5, a Tactical Explosives Detection Dog with 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, provide security as Afghan Border Police break ground on a new checkpoint March 25, in Spin Boldak district, Kandahar province, Afghanistan. U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Shane Hamann, 102nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment.

Charts: Look At How Badly Obama Lags on Judicial Appointments

Erika Eichelberger — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:02:48 +0000

Last week, President Obama withdrew his judicial nominee for the powerful DC Circuit Court of Appeals—which hasn't had a nominee confirmed since 2006—because Republicans threatened to filibuster her. This high-profile battle is just the tip of the iceberg. Because of Republican obstructionism, the Obama administration's lackadaisical pace of nominations, and problems with the Senate confirmation process, more federal judgeships are staying vacant nationwide under this president than under President Bush, and Obama's nominees are taking longer to get confirmed.

During Obama's first term, the number of appeals court vacancies rose from 14 to 17. During Bush’s first term, by contrast, appeals court vacancies dropped from 27 to 18. Because Obama has been slower to nominate than Bush or Clinton, the average number of days from the opening of a seat to a nomination increased by 44 percent between Bush's and Obama's first terms.

This graph, by the data visualization shop Remapping Debate, shows the average number of vacancies per year, starting in 2001 (scroll to view all years, and hover over for details):

Learn About Tableau

When the president finally does nominate someone, the Senate is generally reluctant to confirm her. Obama has 15 judicial nominees waiting for Senate floor votes right now. Overall, his judicial nominees wait an average of 116 days on the Senate floor for a vote—three times longer than Bush’s average judicial nominee wait time. When the 112th Congress ended in December, the Senate had approved 175 of Obama's judges. By contrast, Bush had 206 judges approved in his first term, and President Clinton had 204.

The figure below, also by Remapping Debate, compares Bush and Obama's first terms, showing the average number of days between vacancy and nomination, and the number of days nominees were pending before the Senate.

Why is the GOP so obstinate on confirmations? Senate Republicans may be giving Democrats a little payback. "Republicans don’t think Bush’s nominees were treated fairly," Russell Wheeler, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, which has tracked the phenomenon, told Bloomberg News on Wednesday.

Confirmation of a nominee to the DC circuit court, which is one step below the Supreme Court, is particularly important for Obama's second term because the court handles all disputes related to regulations and executive actions. "With legislative priorities gridlocked in Congress, the president’s best hope for advancing his agenda is through executive action, and that runs through the D.C. Circuit," Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, told the Washington Post Tuesday.

Right now that court is conservative-dominated, with four Republican and three Democratic appointees, and four vacancies (twice as many as any other court of appeals). This configuration didn't work out so well in the Obama's first term. The DC circuit court blocked EPA air pollution rules and put a hold on cases related to workers' rights.

Of the DC circuit confirmation, Kendall says "There are few things more vital on the president’s second-term agenda."

Occupy the Department Of Education Returns to DC

Stephanie Mencimer — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:20:10 +0000

Most of the Occupy movement has petered out a year and a half after it exploded in New York’s Zuccotti Park. But one small segment of that movement is rallying in DC this week to focus attention on the evils of “corporate education reform.”

Liberal education luminaries including Diane Ravitch, a former assistant education secretary, and Central Park East schools guru Deborah Meier, will be in Washington as part of a four-day “Occupy the Department of Education” event organized by United Optout, a group that came together last year in the flurry of other Occupy Wall Street events. They’ll be part of non-stop speechmaking from teachers, educators, students, and parents, decrying such things as high-stakes testing and the move towards privatizing public education.

The focus on the Department of Education is intentional. Liberal school advocates are deeply unhappy with President Barack Obama’s education reform agenda, which Peggy Robertson, one organizer of this event, calls “No Child Left Behind on steroids.” Robertson, a veteran teacher from Colorado, says that Obama’s education agenda has “opened the door” to the privatization of public education. His Race to the Top initiative is one of the protest’s primary targets.

Robertson says that this initiative, which has created a competition among states for a large pot of new education funding, requires states to accept certain conditions to receive the new money. These conditions include implementing the Common Core standards, a set of new, national guidelines outlining what students should be expected to learn. (The Occupy activists oppose the standards, which they believe deprive teachers of flexibility and creativity in the classroom by dictating what material they need to cover.) Race to the Top grant recipients are also required to allow more charter schools, create a longitudinal database full of student information to track performance, and tie high-stakes testing to teacher evaluations.

All of these things, Robertson contends, create a windfall for big companies seeking a piece of the enormous public education budget and smother creativity in the classroom. (The Occupiers aren’t the only ones obsessed with the Common Core standards. Glenn Beck has been on a tear against them, too, calling them a form of “leftist ideology” that is “dumbing down schools across the country.”)

The Occupiers descending upon the Education Department this week are trying to draw attention to all of this, along with the rash of public school closings going on around the country, most notably in Chicago and Washington. Robertson recognizes that it’s a tough task. “Most of mainstream media ignores everything we say,” she admits. Last year they had only about 100 people at their rally. This year, she’s hoping for at least a thousand, which isn’t much for a DC protest. But Robertson thinks it’s important to try to present an alternative to the sweeping corporate reform effort. “What’s scary," she remarks, "is how fast it’s happening.”

Alabama Bill Could Shut Down All Abortion Clinics in State

Maggie Severns — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:24:02 +0000

The Alabama legislature passed a bill on Tuesday that will heavily restrict abortion, potentially shutting down all five of the state's abortion clinics. The state House and Senate passed the bill by votes of 68-21 and 22-10 respectively, and Governor Bentley is expected to sign it soon.

One of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, argued in February that this new law was necessary to protect women because "abortion removes the largest organ in a woman's body."

That comment was neither scientifically accurate nor did it explain what Alabama's Women's Health and Safety Act is designed to do, so here it is: The bill, which copies legislation passed in Mississippi in 2012, mandates that doctors at abortion clinics have admitting privileges at local hospitals. This gives local hospitals the leeway to flat-out deny doctors these privileges. The doctors at Mississippi's last abortion clinic, for instance, were rejected at all seven hospitals they approached for admitting privileges.

"[The hospitals] were clear that they didn't deal with abortion and they didn't want the internal or the external pressure of dealing with it," Mississippi clinic owner Diane Derzis told the Associated Press in February.

"The reality is the hospital's decisions will be based on ideology and politics" in Alabama, Nikema Williams, vice president of Planned Parenthood Southeast, told Mother Jones. "A lot of boards for public hospitals are appointed by the state."

In Mississippi, litigation filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights has kept the clinic open for now: Last July, a judge blocked the state from penalizing the doctors while they try to secure the new privileges, buying the clinic more time. Williams says she expects women's rights advocates in Alabama will also head to court to try and keep the state's last few clinics open.

The Taliban Are Inadvertently Really Good at Endangered Falcon Conservation

Asawin Suebsaeng — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 21:21:31 +0000

The Taliban, the violent Islamist movement, is responsible for a lot of bloodshed, many human rights violations, and some really mediocre and chauvinist poetry.

They are also at the forefront of protecting endangered falcons, however unintentional their conservation efforts may be.

Ashfaq Yusufzai has the story:

While the Taliban's military activities continue to plague Pakistan's northern Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the incessant violence has been a blessing in disguise for one creature: the falcon.

Declared endangered by the [International Union for Conservation of Nature], this bird of prey suffered for years at the hands of poachers and hunters, whose unfettered access to FATA and the adjacent Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province guaranteed the birds a short life span in the wild, with most destined to be trapped, killed or sold.

But "continued militancy has kept the poachers (and hunters) away," Khalid Shah, an official at the KP Wildlife Department, told IPS, adding that the survival rate of falcons and some other migratory birds has "increased tremendously". In 2005 only 2,000 falcons lived in these northern territories, but by 2008 wildlife officials had recorded an increase of up to 8,000 birds.

Experts trace this population growth to the beginning of the insurgency here, which began after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the government in Kabul and sent scores of Taliban and Al Qaeda members across the border into Pakistan's sprawling mountainous terrain. Being the U.S. 's ally in the so-called "war on terror", the Pakistan army has engaged in a military offensive to root out the insurgents...Under fire from both sides, civilian residents say militancy has made daily activities – among them hunting and poaching — impossible.

On a related note, after the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan, the regime made it illegal to own birds in cages. Also, a study conducted by scientists from the New England Aquarium determined that whales greatly benefited from the September 11 Al Qaeda attack on New York's Twin Towers. But Islamist violence is probably not a net positive for local wildlife; during the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in the '90s, they ransacked the Kabul zoo, slaughtered animals, maimed a bear, threw a grenade at a lion, and left the other creatures to starve to death.

Accidental falcon conservation aside, the Taliban's treatment of animals often mirrors their treatment of women.

h/t Jon Mooallem

Bush Lying About WMD Is a Conspiracy Theory?!?

Kate Sheppard — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:34:54 +0000

People believe crazy things.The lunar landing was faked; a secret band of "lizard people" controls our society. New survey data from Public Policy Polling released on Tuesday shows notable percentages of Americans embrace a wide variety of conspiracy theories, from Bigfoot to the CIA creating the crack epidemic.

PPP found that:

37 percent of voters believe global warming is a hoax
6 percent of voters don't believe that Osama bin Laden is dead
28 percent of voters believe "secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order"
7 percent of voters think man did not actually walk on the moon
13 percent of voters think President Obama is the anti-Christ
14 percent of voters believe in Bigfoot
44 percent believe George W. Bush intentionally misled the US about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

Screeeeech. Stop the crazy train. What? Bush did lie about WMD. That's not a wacky conspiracy theory; it is quite well documented at this point. That's a topic for another poll.

Virginia Gov. Candidate Cuccinelli Defending Law That Forbids Oral Sex

Kate Sheppard — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:13:43 +0000

Last month, three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit deemed a Virginia anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The provision, part of the state's "Crimes Against Nature" law, has been moot since the 2003 US Supreme Court decision overruled state laws barring consensual gay sex, but Virginia has kept the prohibition on the books.

Now Virginia attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli is asking the full 4th Circuit to reconsider the case. Cuccinelli wants the court to revive the prohibition on consensual anal and oral sex, for both gay and straight people. (The case at hand involves consensual, heterosexual oral sex, but, as the New York Times explained in 2011, it's "icky": The sex was between a 47-year-old man and two teenagers above Virginia's age of consent.)*

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has filed a petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state’s sodomy law.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on March 12 that a section of Virginia’s "Crimes Against Nature" statute that outlaws sodomy between consenting adults, gay or straight, is unconstitutional based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 known as Lawrence v. Texas.

A clerk with the 4th Circuit appeals court said a representative of the Virginia Attorney General's office filed the petition on Cuccinelli's behalf on March 26. The petition requests what is known as an en banc hearing before the full 15 judges to reconsider the earlier ruling by the three-judge panel.

Mother Jones confirmed that Cuccinelli had filed the request with the court as well. Given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that gay sex is okay and moved on to the question of gay marriage, I wouldn't expect his appeal to go very far.

This post has been updated to include more details about the case in question.

Study: The GOP Doesn't Care What Americans Think About the Budget

Dana Liebelson — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 17:02:55 +0000

It doesn't matter whether you have a faded Obama or Romney bumper sticker still plastered to the family car, there a few things that you probably support spending your tax dollars on: Roads, education, social security, health care, aid for the poor, and the military. You're not unique: A recent Pew Research Center polling of about 1,500 Americans found that over 70 percent of Americans don't want to reduce spending on these things, either. But when it comes to funding the services that Americans actually want, Republican budget plans, including the one proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) and rejected by the Senate last month, are far less likely than Democratic budget plans to reflect public opinion, a new study by the Center for Effective Government finds.

"Democrats seem more attuned to the public's views on specific areas of spending," says the report's author, Nick Schwellenbach, a senior fiscal policy analyst for the organization. "I think the difference is due to fundamental philosophical disagreements over the role of government."

The study examined four major budget plans, from Ryan, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). Then, in a handy chart, it compared the plans with the results of the Pew poll, looking at Social Security, education, Medicare, roads and infrastructure, scientific research, military defense, health care, and aid to the needy.

According to the report, "Americans reject reductions in the vast majority of specific areas of spending" and the only area where the Ryan and RSC budgets actually aligned with public opinion was defense. Both had no plans to slash defense spending, even though waste in the Pentagon has been extensively documented (useless $380 million ballistic missile, anyone?)

Here's a look at how the plans break down on education:

60 Percent of Americans Support Increasing Funds for Education

Elissar Khalek, Center for Effective Government

So are politicians not listening—or do Americans simply not understand the deficit, or where they want to spend their money? A McClatchy-Marist poll found last month that Americans are split on whether budget cuts will help or hurt the economy (and they prefer tax increases to cutting their favorite programs.) A poll taken by Business Insider last year (below) found that almost half of Americans also think that sequestration increases the national deficit, despite the fact that it's an austerity measure. And as The American Prospect notes, "Voters associate high deficits with poor economic performance—the public might say that it wants more action to lower the deficit, but what it means is that it wants Washington to improve the economy."

Schwellenbach acknowledges that "sometimes perspectives are wrong. For instance, Americans tend to think spending on foreign aid is somewhere around a quarter of the budget, when it's closer to 1 percent." However, he argues that when it comes to taxes, Americans' views are spot on. "The time to pay off the debt is when the economy is back on track, as the US was doing in the late 1990s when we had budget surpluses. We can get back there, but not by doing the best we can to throw the economy back into a recession."

Robert Reich, who served as Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton, argues in The Christian Science Monitor that politicians, Republicans in particular, don't listen to their constituents when crafting budgets because politicians are more interested in their financial interests than making people happy. "The American democracy has shown itself far less responsive—and our politicians remarkably impervious—to public opinion concerning economic issues that might affect the fates of large fortunes. This is a distressing feature of our democracy, necessitating change."

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for April 3, 2013

Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:18:49 +0000

Cpl. Martin Kim and Lance Cpl. James Brockwell take a rest at Afghan Uniform Police Outpost Mamuriyet April 1. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Bobby J. Yarbrough.

Reformers: Publicly Funded Elections Will Tackle New York's Corruption Problem

Andy Kroll — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:27:59 +0000

It was a ham-handed scheme straight out of an episode of "Law and Order." Federal prosecutors revealed on Monday that New York State Sen. Malcolm Smith, a Democrat, allegedly tried to bribe his way onto the New York City mayoral ballot—as a Republican. Envelopes stuffed with cash changed hands in hotel rooms and restaurants. Local Republican officials talked about "money greasing the wheels" and "the fucking money" driving local politics. Smith's plan depended on paying off two Republicans from Queens who could get his name on the ballot in time for the November election. Instead, an undercover FBI agent and a cooperating witness infiltrated the deal and laid bare just the latest seamy corruption scandal to rock New York politics.

Preet Bharara, the US attorney in Manhattan spearheading the Smith case, told reporters on Monday that "today's charges demonstrate, once again, that a show-me-the-money culture seems to pervade every level of New York government." New York City Councilman Daniel Halloran, one of the two Republicans allegedly implicated in Smith's scheme, would seem to agree. In the complaint filed against Smith et al, Halloran offers this nugget of wisdom:

"That's politics, that's politics, it's all about how much. Not about whether or will, it's about how much, and that's our politicians in New York, they're all like that, all like that. And they get like that because of the drive that the money does for everything else. You can't do anything without the fucking money."

The Smith scandal comes as a well-funded coalition of progressive groups are pressuring Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other legislators to pass legislation replacing the state's current elections regime with publicly financed campaigns. Now, those reformers are pointing to the Smith scandal as further evidence that New York's political systems need a major overhaul. "This is the kind of conduct that we believe comes out of a culture that is a pay-to-play, money first, voters don't count culture," Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York, told the Journal News. "What we're trying to change is the role money plays in our political system."

The editorial page of the Albany Times Union, a supporter of public financing, asked on Tuesday: "What better evidence can there be of the need for such reform than this case, in which one of their own, the onetime Senate president and Democratic leader, stands accused of trying to bribe Republican leaders to get a place on the ballot as a GOP candidate for mayor of New York City?"

The Fair Elections for New York campaign, the main force behind the public financing bill, said in a statement that the Smith scandal will only harden New Yorkers' belief that corruption pervades every corner of state politics. "We can all agree the system is broken," the statement reads. "Now it's time to stand shoulder to shoulder with Governor Cuomo and the growing bipartisan majority of New Yorkers who support comprehensive campaign finance reform, which must include a system of publicly financed elections at its core."

Nearly Four Years After Dr. Tiller's Murder, Wichita Has An Abortion Clinic Again

Kate Sheppard — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:53:39 +0000

For the first time in nearly four years, women in Wichita have access to an abortion clinic. South Wind Women's Center plans to open its doors this week, and will provide abortions in the city for the first time since an anti-abortion extremist murdered Dr. George Tiller in May 2009.

The clinic, run by former Tiller spokeswoman Julie Burkhart, will provide abortions up to the 14th week, along with gynecological services like pap smears, breast exams, birth control prescriptions, and prenatal care. I talked to Burkhart in February about reopening the clinic:

Mother Jones: Wichita has been the subject of so much attention from both anti- and pro-choice activists. What is the significance of reopening the clinic?

Julie Burkhart: First and foremost, we want to make sure that women who need to see us, want to come see us, are able to access care. We're looking at a few thousand women who now have to travel outside the area each year. Secondly, what it says is that no matter where you live in the United States of America, women will have access to reproductive health care. This community has just been so embroiled in the abortion…I hate to say the abortion "debate," but just the turmoil. Some people would say, "Just leave it alone and let it go." However, we can't really have true freedom in this country until everyone can access that right.

Why, just because we live in Kansas, in the middle of the country, should women be faced with more hardship? Why should it just be women on the coast where the laws are typically more liberal that have access to abortion care? I hope that's what people get out of this—that no matter where you are as a woman, you're entitled to that right.

Read the full interview here.

John McCain Flashback: The Gun-Show Loophole is "Wrong"

Gavin Aronsen — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:39:10 +0000

At the Washington Post, Greg Sargent takes a look at Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) previous support of gun control measures, which included ads he cut in October 2000 in support of successful ballot initiatives in Colorado and Oregon to close gun-show loopholes on background checks.

Behind the scenes of Senate Democrats' efforts to strike a compromise on background checks, McCain is seen as a potential key ally who could make a bipartisan bill more tenable for House Republicans.

"I'm John McCain with some straight talk," McCain says in the ad. "Convicted felons have been able to buy and sell thousands of guns at gun shows because of a loophole in the law. Many were later used in crimes. That's wrong."

So far, Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) is the only Senate Republican to publicly express support for legislation that would require private sellers to run background checks. Along with McCain, senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) are seen as the best bets for a broader bipartisan compromise. Talks between Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who authored the original background check bill that cleared the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fell apart in February. Coburn, however, says he is still open to a limited expansion of the current law.

Sargent points out how McCain's moderate past on gun control speaks to just how far to the right the debate has since lurched:

What's particularly interesting here is that McCain was staking out what was then the moderate middle ground. At the time, the left pole of the gun control debate was defined partly by opposition to the idea of a gun ownership right, with some arguing that it only existed on Constitutional grounds in the context of militia membership. McCain's position put him squarely in the middle between gun control groups and gun rights forces.

Since then, the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller — which struck down D.C.'s handgun ban — upheld a Constitutional right to gun ownership for traditionally lawful purposes. With that Supreme Court precedent set, it should theoretically be even easier for Republicans to accept the middle ground position of universal background checks, which don’t threaten rights that are now enshrined by the Court. But neither McCain nor any other Republican Senator (except for Mark Kirk) has so far proven willing to take the step McCain did back in 2000, underscoring how far to the right the debate remains, even in the wake of the massacre of 20 children.

The War On Drugs Is Still Not Working

Asawin Suebsaeng — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:17:02 +0000

Four decades ago, President Nixon launched the US-led global War on Drugs. It has cost the nation over a trillion dollars. 50,000 people have lost their lives to shootouts, bombings, torture, and execution, and that's only counting six years in Mexico.

And it is still not working. Here's an excerpt from an AP investigation released on Monday:

Mexican drug cartels whose operatives once rarely ventured beyond the U.S. border are dispatching some of their most trusted agents to live and work deep inside the United States — an emboldened presence that experts believe is meant to tighten their grip on the world's most lucrative narcotics market and maximize profits.

If left unchecked, authorities say, the cartels' move into the American interior could render the syndicates harder than ever to dislodge and pave the way for them to expand into other criminal enterprises such as prostitution, kidnapping-and-extortion rackets and money laundering.

[...]

"It's probably the most serious threat the United States has faced from organized crime," said Jack Riley, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Chicago office..."People think, 'The border's 1,700 miles away. This isn't our problem.' Well, it is. These days, we operate as if Chicago is on the border."

The nonprofit Chicago Crime Commission recently named Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, leader of the Sinaloa cartel, the city's "Public Enemy No. 1," even though Guzman has never even been to Chicago.

The AP investigation notes recent cases indicative of cartel expansion in suburbs and cities of non-border states like Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

On a related note, here's a chart, courtesy of filmmaker Matt Groff:

This is your tax dollars on drugs. Read the whole AP report here.